Court hearing on 9.31 federal subpoenas delayed again

A federal judge on Wednesday put off the county's hearing in federal court for its motion to quash federal subpoenas for the county's medical marijuana records, kept under Chapter 9.31 of the County Code.

The county was due in federal court Tuesday, Jan. 29, to address its motion, but the date was reset to Feb. 19, Mendocino County Counsel Tom Parker announced Thursday.

The county and the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed on the new hearing date, set for 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3 of the Northern District Court in San Francisco, according to Parker. Both parties signed a stipulation asking for the February hearing date, and U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg granted it Wednesday.

The subpoenas came Oct. 23 from the U.S. Attorney's Northern District Office, and were delivered to Auditor-Controller Meredith Ford, Sheriff Tom Allman, Sheriff's Office Financial Manager Norman Thurston, Sheriff's Capt. Randy Johnson -- who oversaw the county's erstwhile medical marijuana garden inspection program -- and the "custodian of records."

They asked for "any and all records" -- including financial records -- for the county's medical marijuana cultivation ordinance from Jan. 1, 2010 to the present.

Under 9.31 -- developed originally in 2008 -- medical marijuana collectives were once able to get permits to grow up to 99 plants from the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, an exemption from the county's limit of 25 plants per parcel. The program started in June 2010 and ended in March 2012, after the U.S. Attorney's Office threatened legal action against the permitting program.

The subpoenas also asked for all types of communication regarding 9.31, including with third-party medical marijuana garden inspectors and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. The medical marijuana industry urged the county to fight the subpoenas and protect the information.

The county announced Dec. 11 that it had hired San Francisco attorney William Osterhoudt to help represent the county regarding the subpoenas, and announced the week before Christmas that it had filed the motion to quash the subpoenas on the grounds that they are "overbroad and burdensome" in scope, and are an "improper intrusion" on the county's and the state's ability to govern its citizens.

The county had originally been scheduled to go to court Jan. 4 for a hearing on the motion. Both sides agreed to reschedule the hearing to Jan. 29, then until Feb. 19.

In the meantime, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors earlier in January updated 9.31 to say that the records are confidential.

Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@ukiahdj.com, on Twitter @TiffanyRevelle or at 468-3523.